How exactly would one ask a depressed man "nicely" to temporarily give up his cherished firearms without suggesting that he is no longer "man enough" to have them around?
You have made a false assumption. Most depressed people do not commit suicide. Greater than 37 million Americans are on antidepressants. The fact a person is depressed does not mean they are suicidal. A friend lost his wife of 50 years, he was depressed for about 3 months, normal. The only thing that gave him pleasure, during that time, was tinkering with his guns and his cars, teaching gun safety at the gun range he was the range master, and teaching me gunsmithing.
We don't know. I would be willing to bet that the majority of depressed persons do not seek medical or psychological intervention. In 2020, a total of 45,979 deaths were attributable to suicide, by 2023 the number was more than 50,000 Americans died by suicide, that is almost a 9% increase in 3 years. You have to ask what changed. What were the demographics of those who killed themselves. The CDC has a known and well documented bias against guns, so their attribution can not be trusted.
Also.....The research I have seen shows that in many cases, city by city, 70-80% of the victims and shooters have criminal records...so saying that gang violence isn't the factor that accounts for gun murder is not answering the question....the left then uses "gun homicide," to imply that those actually committing murder are a majority of normal people who simply chose to murder their wives because they had a gun handy...when this is not even close to being the case. Will you be exploring this aspect of the gun debate?
So explain Korea, Korea has banned guns and has a significantly higher suicide rate than the U.S. In fact, as of 2019 stats we don't place in the top 30 countries, most of which have strict gun controls. Now explain Switzerland, they have a higher gun ownership rate than we do, about 50% where we are about 43%. Their suicide rate is about a third lower than ours. In science, all it takes is one piece of countering evidence to falsify a hypothesis, I have provided you with two pieces.
Suicide is mostly cultural. South Korea is interesting because their suicide rate not only exceeds ours, but their suicide rate alone exceeds our combined suicide rate and homicide rate by all causes.
One of the more interesting pieces on this cultural element in the USA was republished in RECOIL#50. Here's a link to the original.
There's also an interesting time dimension – not just a cultural/geographical aspect – to violent acts (including self-violence like suicide). Sometimes the forms of such acts wax and wane over extended periods, since culture isn't static?
Thread here with some (however casual) observations around that ...
(This is the tail end of a thread responding to some very valid and interesting musings, by the original poster and many in their replies, about factors that might have led to a significant uptick in mass shootings in schools in the USA, starting in the 1990s, and with a couple of additional jumps in 2005 and 2015, respectively.)
The problem with the suicide discussion? South Korea, Japan, and China, all with the most extreme gun control....have higher suicide rates than the U.S. Also, many countries in Europe, with extensive gun control laws....have higher suicide rates than the U.S....so guns really are not the issue....and just assuming that if you take guns out of the U.S. that men who committed suicide with guns would not have also done so without the gun, isn't accurate...again, see South Korea, Japan, at times France, Germany, Norway, Scotland.......
The folly of thinking that the only damage from gun ownership comes from a death is merely the tip of the iceberg of the problem. The idea that the 125k plus wounded bad enough to require a trip to the emergency room do not get included in the analysis is about all you need to know about research on gun violence in this country.
If you lose and arm or a leg or an eye--it doesn't count.
You make some great points. I'd love to share this with many friends but I suspect the Left/Right title and debate at the beginning would stop them from the meat of your argument which I agree with absolutely.
So if getting rid of all firearms saves 18,000 men's lives per year from suicide alone (obviously not addessing homicides and accidents), can we go over again why it's bad to try to get rid of them? Less guns=less deaths. You just showed that. So....... Less guns? And mental health services! Less unnecessary deaths seems like a good goal
Because we can't and no one is even suggesting we do so. Your comment illustrates the exact point the author is making that the anti gun left is approaching the problem all wrong. In addition, the author proposes the "getting rid of all the guns" as a hypothetical impossibility.
I don't think it's all or nothing though... It seems like politics aside everyone agrees having more guns around leads to more unnecessary deaths, right? So we can just have less guns. Let's say we only get rid of half the firearms: that's 9,000 men in the prime of their lives saved from suicide. Or we just stop selling new ones and reduce the number of deaths gradually over many years. Lots of potential solutions. No need to give up just because it can't all be done entirely and instantaneously.
Wouldn't it cost $0 to just stop selling new guns? I think the larger point here is that if you want to advocate for the right to bear arms, you have to be honest about it. I thought that's what this whole piece was about? There's no public health argument to support firearm sales. You just wrote this whole piece above about how many suicide deaths are attributable to firearms, above other causes, right??? So just have the courage to stand behind that, and say: this is how many unnecessary deaths we are willing to endorse in exchange for the right to have guns. Why all this backtracking now?
Take the number of guns we have. 350 to 400 million, give or take.
Figure out how large the population would have to be if no new guns were introduced to the system in order for our guns/cap to be identical to England.
Calculate how many centuries it will be before the US has a population that large at current population growth rates.
Sounds like a lot I'll take your word for it. Are you saying it's impossible and we shouldn't try? I just don't see the downside of trying, at least on the production end where it costs nothing, frees up capacity for other stuff in the economy, and saves.........? 1 life? Would that be cool? what if it's 2? Is it worth it then? How many people would you rather see alive that it's more important than producing new firearms?
Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...
..Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
"saved from suicide"?? because you got rid of guns? You clearly know nothing about mental health. There are many ways to commit suicide. You are not saving 9000 men when you take away their guns. You are merely taking away only 1 of many choices that they have to commit suicide. There are others. Stop deluding yourself that you are saving lives. You are not.
I'm not doing anything I'm commenting on somebody's blog. That's probably beneath doing nothing LOL. Read the post, man. It is literally about male suicides attributable to the presence of firearms. The whole point is that those 9,000 deaths wouldn't happen if they did not have easy access to guns. That's the whole thing you just read. If you think it's not worth preventing some of those deaths in exchange for restrictions on gun ownership, that's a different debate. But you're not arguing with me here; you're arguing with the blog post.
17 studies show that Americans use their legal guns to stop rapes, robberies, murders, beatings and stabbings...according to the CDC, between 500,000 to 3 million times a year....research they did in 2013 looking at all the then current gun research at the request of obama.....they spent 10 million dollars to do that research......so...can you tell which number is bigger? Those are lives saved from rape, robbery and murder as well as stabbings and beatings...so it isn't 18,000 lives that could be saved, since those 18,000 are going to pick another way to kill themselves, as other posters have noted about South Korea....and hundreds of thousands of now defenseless Americans will have their rape, murder, robbery, beating or stabbing completed instead of stopped when they use their legal gun...
How exactly would one ask a depressed man "nicely" to temporarily give up his cherished firearms without suggesting that he is no longer "man enough" to have them around?
Very carefully. With statistics, and no pressure.
You have made a false assumption. Most depressed people do not commit suicide. Greater than 37 million Americans are on antidepressants. The fact a person is depressed does not mean they are suicidal. A friend lost his wife of 50 years, he was depressed for about 3 months, normal. The only thing that gave him pleasure, during that time, was tinkering with his guns and his cars, teaching gun safety at the gun range he was the range master, and teaching me gunsmithing.
Is this the majority of cases?
We don't know. I would be willing to bet that the majority of depressed persons do not seek medical or psychological intervention. In 2020, a total of 45,979 deaths were attributable to suicide, by 2023 the number was more than 50,000 Americans died by suicide, that is almost a 9% increase in 3 years. You have to ask what changed. What were the demographics of those who killed themselves. The CDC has a known and well documented bias against guns, so their attribution can not be trusted.
"Willing to bet" means you're making an assumption, ironically. I suggest we go with what we know rather than what we feel.
Also, while most depressed people don't commit suicide, nearly all suicides are by depressed people.
Also.....The research I have seen shows that in many cases, city by city, 70-80% of the victims and shooters have criminal records...so saying that gang violence isn't the factor that accounts for gun murder is not answering the question....the left then uses "gun homicide," to imply that those actually committing murder are a majority of normal people who simply chose to murder their wives because they had a gun handy...when this is not even close to being the case. Will you be exploring this aspect of the gun debate?
So explain Korea, Korea has banned guns and has a significantly higher suicide rate than the U.S. In fact, as of 2019 stats we don't place in the top 30 countries, most of which have strict gun controls. Now explain Switzerland, they have a higher gun ownership rate than we do, about 50% where we are about 43%. Their suicide rate is about a third lower than ours. In science, all it takes is one piece of countering evidence to falsify a hypothesis, I have provided you with two pieces.
Suicide is mostly cultural. South Korea is interesting because their suicide rate not only exceeds ours, but their suicide rate alone exceeds our combined suicide rate and homicide rate by all causes.
One of the more interesting pieces on this cultural element in the USA was republished in RECOIL#50. Here's a link to the original.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/geographic-evidence-that-gun-deaths
There's also an interesting time dimension – not just a cultural/geographical aspect – to violent acts (including self-violence like suicide). Sometimes the forms of such acts wax and wane over extended periods, since culture isn't static?
Thread here with some (however casual) observations around that ...
https://twitter.com/aronro/status/1530675993345765376
(This is the tail end of a thread responding to some very valid and interesting musings, by the original poster and many in their replies, about factors that might have led to a significant uptick in mass shootings in schools in the USA, starting in the 1990s, and with a couple of additional jumps in 2005 and 2015, respectively.)
The problem with the suicide discussion? South Korea, Japan, and China, all with the most extreme gun control....have higher suicide rates than the U.S. Also, many countries in Europe, with extensive gun control laws....have higher suicide rates than the U.S....so guns really are not the issue....and just assuming that if you take guns out of the U.S. that men who committed suicide with guns would not have also done so without the gun, isn't accurate...again, see South Korea, Japan, at times France, Germany, Norway, Scotland.......
The folly of thinking that the only damage from gun ownership comes from a death is merely the tip of the iceberg of the problem. The idea that the 125k plus wounded bad enough to require a trip to the emergency room do not get included in the analysis is about all you need to know about research on gun violence in this country.
If you lose and arm or a leg or an eye--it doesn't count.
Some thoughts in response to the question at the end of this (excellent) post ...
https://twitter.com/aronro/status/1530965112038666245
You make some great points. I'd love to share this with many friends but I suspect the Left/Right title and debate at the beginning would stop them from the meat of your argument which I agree with absolutely.
So if getting rid of all firearms saves 18,000 men's lives per year from suicide alone (obviously not addessing homicides and accidents), can we go over again why it's bad to try to get rid of them? Less guns=less deaths. You just showed that. So....... Less guns? And mental health services! Less unnecessary deaths seems like a good goal
Because we can't and no one is even suggesting we do so. Your comment illustrates the exact point the author is making that the anti gun left is approaching the problem all wrong. In addition, the author proposes the "getting rid of all the guns" as a hypothetical impossibility.
I don't think it's all or nothing though... It seems like politics aside everyone agrees having more guns around leads to more unnecessary deaths, right? So we can just have less guns. Let's say we only get rid of half the firearms: that's 9,000 men in the prime of their lives saved from suicide. Or we just stop selling new ones and reduce the number of deaths gradually over many years. Lots of potential solutions. No need to give up just because it can't all be done entirely and instantaneously.
I've literally already done the "get rid of half the guns" analysis. Here it is:
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/gun-buybacks-dont-work-if-you-believe
It costs you 86 million dollars per *single* life saved. That's the annual budget of a mid sized police department.
Wouldn't it cost $0 to just stop selling new guns? I think the larger point here is that if you want to advocate for the right to bear arms, you have to be honest about it. I thought that's what this whole piece was about? There's no public health argument to support firearm sales. You just wrote this whole piece above about how many suicide deaths are attributable to firearms, above other causes, right??? So just have the courage to stand behind that, and say: this is how many unnecessary deaths we are willing to endorse in exchange for the right to have guns. Why all this backtracking now?
Here's an interesting math problem for you.
Take the number of guns we have. 350 to 400 million, give or take.
Figure out how large the population would have to be if no new guns were introduced to the system in order for our guns/cap to be identical to England.
Calculate how many centuries it will be before the US has a population that large at current population growth rates.
When you get the answer report back
also since you made me use google: here is the study you asked for on waiting periods. It's from RAND corporation, which I don't think is considered liberal: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods/suicide.html
Sounds like a lot I'll take your word for it. Are you saying it's impossible and we shouldn't try? I just don't see the downside of trying, at least on the production end where it costs nothing, frees up capacity for other stuff in the economy, and saves.........? 1 life? Would that be cool? what if it's 2? Is it worth it then? How many people would you rather see alive that it's more important than producing new firearms?
Because guns are the only way to commit suicide? Or might they find a different way?
You would have to explain this...from Pew....
Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...
..Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Here are several explanations of what plausibly could have helped contribute to that trend?
https://twitter.com/aronro/status/978108078556983297
"saved from suicide"?? because you got rid of guns? You clearly know nothing about mental health. There are many ways to commit suicide. You are not saving 9000 men when you take away their guns. You are merely taking away only 1 of many choices that they have to commit suicide. There are others. Stop deluding yourself that you are saving lives. You are not.
oops 18,000 I forgot we were talking about some theoretical "half" of the male suicides the author attributes to access to guns.
I'm not doing anything I'm commenting on somebody's blog. That's probably beneath doing nothing LOL. Read the post, man. It is literally about male suicides attributable to the presence of firearms. The whole point is that those 9,000 deaths wouldn't happen if they did not have easy access to guns. That's the whole thing you just read. If you think it's not worth preventing some of those deaths in exchange for restrictions on gun ownership, that's a different debate. But you're not arguing with me here; you're arguing with the blog post.
17 studies show that Americans use their legal guns to stop rapes, robberies, murders, beatings and stabbings...according to the CDC, between 500,000 to 3 million times a year....research they did in 2013 looking at all the then current gun research at the request of obama.....they spent 10 million dollars to do that research......so...can you tell which number is bigger? Those are lives saved from rape, robbery and murder as well as stabbings and beatings...so it isn't 18,000 lives that could be saved, since those 18,000 are going to pick another way to kill themselves, as other posters have noted about South Korea....and hundreds of thousands of now defenseless Americans will have their rape, murder, robbery, beating or stabbing completed instead of stopped when they use their legal gun...